Longitudinal patterns of early development in Canadian late preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective, longitudinal cohort study examined longitudinal patterns of early development in Canadian children born late preterm. A convenience sample of 82 mothers and their healthy, singleton, late preterm children participated. Mothers completed the Ages and Stages Questionnaires at 4, 8, and 18 months corrected age. Concerns were most commonly reported in the communication and gross motor domains, especially early in development. The proportion of children scoring below the referral cut-off in at least one domain at 4, 8, and 18 months was, respectively, 25.6, 25.6, and 14.6%. Only two children (2.4%) scored below referral cut-off in at least one domain at all three time points. At ages four and eight months, the late preterm sample had significantly lower communication and gross motor scores than the Ages and Stages Questionnaires normative sample. At age four months, there was also a significant difference on the fine motor domain. There were no significant differences at age 18 months. Healthy late preterm children appear to catch up to population norms by age 18 months corrected age. Longer term studies are needed to further clarify early indicators of delay in late preterm children and identity those who require close developmental monitoring.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".